Jump to content

Talk:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 22, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1999 Bridge Creek – Moore tornado, ranked F5 on the Fujita scale, was the costliest tornado in United States history?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 3, 2018, May 3, 2019, May 3, 2022, May 3, 2024, and May 3, 2025.


Improvements

[edit]

The only major improvements I can see this needing are some expansion of content (possibly along the lines of this and this), expansion of the lead section, possibly creating subsections by county in the synopsis and impact sections, and more in depth impact information on impact (especially relating to Oklahoma County). Other than those issues, the article appears exceptional. I would say if it is C class at the moment, it is extremely close to B-class. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with almost all these weather articles, the writing style is absolutely awful, on the level of an untalented high school student. I'm not sure why, but the weather seems to bring out writers with no skill at exposition and a penchant for strained grammar and hyperbolic language. This article is a confusing disaster considering the importance of the event. Antimatter33 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to Wikipedia:Positivity for tips on how to be a positive person. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Name

[edit]

I understand that some of the worst damage may have been recorded in Moore, but why is Oklahoma City left out of the title? According to the National Weather Service, there were fatalities in Bridge Creek(12), Oklahoma City(9), Del City(6), Moore(5), Midwest City(3), and Newcastle(1). That puts Moore at only fourth out of six cities in terms of fatalities. I don't understand why so many people seem to make the assumption that everyone who died from this tornado was in Moore and Bridge Creek, when Moore only contained five of the fatalities. Why is Oklahoma City completely left out of this? It seems that whoever was naming this tornado's article was only going by known damage, and ignored the fatalities altogether. Even Del City, who most people do not here as much about when they talk about this tornado, had more fatalities than Moore. I am not saying that Moore should have to be removed from the title, just that Oklahoma City might possibly be referenced. Moore was an impressive location in terms of damage, but not quite so much in terms of fatalities. I would suggest a reference to Oklahoma City, due to the fact that it appears to have had the second most fatalities in from this deadly tornado. 72.198.89.119 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC) MySuggestions[reply]

Most of the time there isn't a good consensus from official sources on what to name a tornado. In this case, since it was an F5, the Storm Prediction Center has a listing that we can use to provide a name. There, it's listed as Bridge Creek/Moore, so those are the areas used for the name. I believe the naming would stem from where the tornado reached F5 status rather than where the fatalities took place. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, what part of the National Weather Service rates tornadoes? Other branches of the NWS refer to it OKC inclusive. This method of naming makes little sense to me; there ought to be a more inclusive name for this tornado. Everyone seems to refer to it as the 1999 Moore tornado, when in all actuality, Moore was only significant in terms of damage; the 301+-20 mph weren't even recorded there. There were other areas that had more significant impacts. I could have almost sworn that at some point, I read an article that was named by metro area due to the impacted area being too expansive. A tornado doesn't need to be F5/EF5 strength to be significant, so another question of mine is, how do you name non-EF5 tornadoes on Wikipedia? Sorry to bother you, I don't want it to seem like I am arguing or anything. Dustin talk 15:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likely the NWS severe storm center. To answer the question about non-EF5 articles, if the tornado was significant and the only one to hit the city, name it [City] tornado. If it was significant but another tornado was also recorded there and both were significant, put [Year] [City] tornado. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debris

[edit]

It first says that 

  "The Bridge Creek−Moore tornado produced an estimated 220 cubic yards (170 m3) of debris from the buildings that were destroyed in the storm.[27][28]"

which seems like a oddly small amount of debris for several thousand destroyed home, especially since building materials, like lumber, tend to take up a lot of volume in a landfill. Then later it says 

  "According to the Army Corps of Engineers, roughly 500,000 cubic yards (382,277 cubic meters) of debris was left behind and would likely take weeks to clear.[38]"

The difference between 220 and 500,000 is huge; obviously not all of the 500,000 cubic yards is debris from buildings, but it should be a larger proportion than 220 cubic yards. Worse, a bit later it goes on to say 

  "By this date, the Army Corps of Engineers reported that 964,170 cubic yards (737,160 cubic meters), roughly 58%, of the 1.65 million cubic yards (1.26 million cubic meters) of debris had been removed.[46]"

Now we're up to 1,650,000 cubic yards of debris as opposed to 220 cubic yards. Obviously these can't all be correct. AnnaGoFast (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. So, they are rough estimates. As time goes on, more and more debris is counted. This leads to more cubic yards (cbyds) of debris in total. Therefore, at some point in time, all of these were correct, just not at once. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

302 mph

[edit]

The given figure on the DOW website is 135 m/s and the subsequent cited paper cites this as well. Per the Wikipedia converter, this gives 135 ± 10 m/s (302 ± 22 mph; 486 ± 36 km/h), and converting 135 m/s to mph raw gives 301.986 which is rounded to 302. The DOW website (which is now a dead link and only relies off a 10-year old archive of it and was likely never updated or fixed considering someone likely mistyped the digits or rounded wrong in mph. @United States Man: insists this is WP:OR but this explicitly used the 135 ± 10 value on the website. This is a pointless argument to be having about but this aligns with the El Reno tornado which also had 135 m/s and is listed as 302 mph. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 05:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, 135 m/s is the accurate number. The El Reno number is actually outdated, with NOAA/OU published in March 2024 that it was 115 to 150 m/s. The new academic paper can be found at https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-23-0242.1. With that being said, the standard process would be {{convert|135|m/s|mph km/h}}, without the plus/minus, as long as the new paper is cited. I will be updated the El Reno article following this message as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the convert template works weird without the plus minus as it lists as 300 instead of 302, so it might be best in this case to just list as normal wiki text. Additionally I can’t access that paper so if there’s an alternate way to see where they stated this I would appreciate it. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 06:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is because due to significant figures, it was decreased from 301.9 to 300. Also, the paper is a pre-print/early access paper. I have access to it though. I can confirm on page 42, it states “135 m s^-1 at 32 m ARL on 3 May 1999 at Bridge Creek, Oklahoma (Wurman et al. 2007);”. Don’t worry too much about it though, full access should be out soon. The paper and parts of it are cited on History of tornado research#2024 as well, which gives more insight, but basically, NOAA/OU did a major study on tornadoes based on radar observations (NEXRAD & Mobile Radar observations), and they went through listing stuff. They had “updated” wind speeds for 1991 Ceres tornado, 1999 Bridge Creek, 1999 Mulhall, 2011 El Reno, and 2013 El Reno. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind giving those other two so I can update them if necessary? Unless they didn’t really change much (i.e if 2011 is still 295 mph) in the “updated” wind speeds. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 06:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
120-125 m/s for Ceres and 115 m/s for Mulhall. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: I’m coming back to this again because it seems like you may be misrepresenting the 2013 El Reno measurement, at least from what I’m seeing from what you’ve provided. You said it was a range of 115-150 m/s, so I’m not sure if it’s the best idea to use the high end as official (and I recall earlier studies said these winds were measured higher in the storm then the 1999 tornado), and instead give the range itself and note that if the higher end is accurate then it could be the highest measured. Just want to make sure we’re writing this correctly. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was the range of 115-150 m/s. However, they were stated to be "near-surface tornado wind speeds". In the 2014 paper, 135 m/s (301.9 mph) was directly observed, with a 7.5 m/s (16 mph) standard deviation. Actually the article is wrong since it is listed as 302 ± 34 mph, when it should be 302 ± 16 mph, just based on the 2014 paper cited in the article / sourced by the 2024 paper. Before hand, the article read up to 135 m/s, since 135 m/s was the highest directly observed measurement, and the ± was strictly due to "standard deviation" (quoted from the 2014 paper). In the new paper, they gave the direct "observations" of "near-surface tornado wind speeds" for the tornado as 115 to 150 m/s, meaning 150 m/s isn't standard deviation, but rather a direct "observation". All of that to say the article (as it is as of this message) seems to be ok, since the lead has "winds up to 150 m/s (340 mph; 540 km/h) within the vortex" and the full explanation below has "In March 2024, NOAA and OU published a new analysis, which estimated that winds may have reached up to anywhere between 115–150 metres per second (260–340 mph; 410–540 km/h)". Either way, it seems to be explained as a range + direct observations up to the peak observed wind speed, which is what we had previously with the 135 m/s from the 2014 paper. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. The issue is then how do we represent this record-wise, as it’s conflicting with the Moore tornado as the highest wind speed. The new range up to 150 m/s could be taken as dethroning the Moore tornado. It seems like they didn’t give a specific number for El Reno which is why I am very hesitant to declare El Reno having the highest winds when it is simply the high end of the observations (additionally there’s the need for it to say if the paper actually stated the wind speed dethrones Moore as the highest). That’s why I suggested the above for El Reno (which honestly I should be talking about on its page but since this involves Moore’s position as well I guess it’s fine staying here) to give us leeway without violating OR, since anything saying El Reno is the highest without a direct source (vs many statements out there for Moore 1999) may be taken as OR. I hope that makes sense. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that there is a related entry at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 3 that will need updating. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anniversary template page updated accordingly now! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity and Greenfield's confirmed peak intensity

[edit]

The opening of this article contained "the highest wind speeds ever measured globally were recorded at 135 metres per second (302 mph; 486 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar." I'm unsure if this claim can stand in the modern day, given the revelation of the 2024 Greenfield Tornado's Doppler on Wheels wind measurement of between 309 mph (497 km/h) and 318 mph (512 km/h), now confirmed by the FARM team headed by Joshua Wurman. 2013 El Reno wasn't able to take the title, despite academic evidence of ~340mph winds, due to lack of DOW evidence, meaning Greenfield is the only legitimate challenger. However, ambiguity remains for Moore's estimate: the 302mph figure with a 20mph (between 282 and 322 miles per hour). Greenfield's estimate is 309-318. These can be written as 302±20 and 313.5±4.5 (the numbers here are less than pretty, in meters per second it's Moore's 135±10 to Greenfield's roughly 140±2), however, it's clear the dead center of Moore's DOW estimate is below the dead center of Greenfield's DOW estimate. I'm rewording the inital statement, and ask we come to some sort of consensus on this, given the ambiguity of this subject gives no clear answer. (Yes, Moore's was closer to the ground, however they won't stand for the highest wind speeds recorded on earth.) GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy enough to just amend the sentence to "some of the highest wind speeds ever measured", at least until more is published about the new measurement. Penitentes (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources accept Moore as the highest winds on Earth, and even the WMO considers this true in terms of strongest winds by radar. We shouldn’t adjust this yet unless many sources pick up on this and more reviews are conducted. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but until post-Greenfield sources take a side (that isn't just regurgitating old knowledge) or we get an official opinion from the SPC, NWS, ESSL, or another recognized meteorological association, neither Greenfield nor Moore should be explicitly considered the record holder. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence proves the point. Moore is closer to the ground and more representative of the likely ground winds of the tornado. Not so for Greenfield (there are always higher winds further up you go but with tornadoes they aren’t really representative of the true intensity). Additionally, there is still lots of preliminary data yet to be surveyed so, and we don’t even have any academic papers yet for Greenfield (and likely won’t for a few years), so this is all still preliminary data subject to change and should not be taken at face value. Moore’s upper end possibility is higher the Greenfield’s so this also means that even in the high-end scenario, Moore is the strongest. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
American sci-fi movies sometimes uses romantic scenes where shockingly massive F6 tornadoes roll into downtown city centers; and that brings me to the point that despite Greenfield's winds being well above the ground, that doesn't mean it wasn't stronger than Moore. 170 feet above the ground is unfathomably high to a rural community like Greenfield, but to a metropolis like Des Moines or Oklahoma City, it comes into perspective that 170 feet is 'only' 17 stories (see the proposed Legends Tower in downtown OKC, whose planned finished height of 1907 feet dwarfs the height above ground that the wind speed was measured). Also, yes, in the case that both tornado's true intensity was at the high end of their estimates, Moore would have been 4mph stronger than Greenfield. But, if both were at their minimum estimates, Greenfield would be a full 27mph above, and at their median and most likely values, Greenfield is 11.5mph above Moore.
Moore was stronger than Greenfield near the ground. That is evident by Greenfield's EF4 rating survey, which estimates a peak intensity of between 175 and 185 miles per hour. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was it multi-vortex

[edit]

Was it a multiple vortex tornado? Did it have multiple vortices, just like the dead man walking tornado of 1997? Beluga732 (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, yes.
Both literally and technically.
The definition of "multiple vortices" you are probably thinking of is when there is no defined main circulation. In which, the tornado is made up of smaller visible columns of rotating air.
Literally, however, all tornadoes are multi-vortex.
The main portions of most, if not all tornadoes are only achieving windspeeds of EF1 intensity. There are smaller "sub-vortices" inside the parent circulation that do the damaging aspect of the tornado(es) in question. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to add a section

[edit]

Can I add a section that includes the damage markers and the reasons for giving them that rating. (Or at least the significant ones) GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Strongest" and "worldwide" claims

[edit]

Two claims in the lede and prose of the article are disputed. The claim that the Bridge Creek/Moore tornado was the strongest tornado recorded by DOW is in discussion, with the 2013 El Reno tornado being drawn as points of contradiction. The claim that the winds recorded in the Bridge Creek/Moore tornado were the strongest ever recorded worldwide is also contended, also due to the El Reno tornado. Departure– (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Bridge Creek-Moore tornado is cited in the Greenfield FARM statement as 321mph per Wurman et al. 2021, while also acknowledging the El Reno tornado as having two figures - 313mph per Bluestein et al 2015, and 291-336mph per Wurman et al. 2014. As this is source is most recent, it should be given extra weight at at least acknowledging both claims. As Bridge Creek's 321mph estimate is below the highest figure for the El Reno range cited by Wurman et al. 2014, it should not be claimed in Wikivoice that Moore was definitively the strongest. It could very easily be claimed to be one of three measurements over 300mph or, as I have done so far, one of the highest DOW measurements. Departure– (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reliable source for the tornado's DOW wind measurements being the strongest worldwide. While this is almost certainly true, because there is no sourcing for this claim, having it in the article is synthesis (in addition to the doubt cast by the El Reno range). I removed the Cyclone Olivia source because it was 10 years out of date, officially did not recognize the Bridge Creek tornado's wind measurements, and is not a good authority for such a contentious claim as "strongest winds on earth". Departure– (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep out - This is a hotly contested metric in the Wx community. Wurman et. al. 2014 technically states that the El Reno tornado had the highest winds ever recorded. Of course this will start a tornado gang war, but just my 2C. And WP:VNT's an essay (it holds zero weight); I don't agree with it at all. — EF5 (questions?) 13:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple sources including one written by the Associated Press say otherwise and make no mention of El Reno. WP:VNT takes precedence here. In contrast, I could not find a single RS that says El Reno was the highest wind on Earth. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 14:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Original source: Today in History: May 3, Oklahoma City struck by historic tornado
    This AP source is very shallow and I don't know how well-researched it is. That wouldn't be a problem per VNT except we know that subject matter experts have different views and the El Reno one in particular is damning to me. The "worldwide" claim really should wait until the El Reno claim is resolved. A short one-paragraph blurb by the AP for its "on this day in history" article shouldn't override the serious doubt from the El Reno source per above. Also, @MarioProtIV, please do not edit to re-add disputed claims while in the WP:BRD cycle, until a consensus is formed. Departure– (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Departure–, I still don't know why we're using an essay to decide this. Precedent isn't consensus per WP:CCC (a policy!) so using essays like VNT is out-of-the-question. — EF5 (questions?) 14:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. VNT is a very shoddy foundation to keep in clearly disputed claims. Departure– (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Departure–, exactly. I've said this at least three times before, but I'm tired of the word "precedent". I'm just going to eliminate it from my vocabulary. — EF5 (questions?) 14:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there’s CNN itself too which settles the VNT reasoning. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 14:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    EF5 tornadoes are terrifying perfect storms, published May 22, 2013 - It really doesn't, though. CNN is clearly reiterating the information coming from the NWS' preliminary surveys in a light story, but this was back when Moore clearly was the strongest. This was a week before the El Reno tornado even happened and shouldn't be used in this argument. Departure– (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, other sources claim El Reno was the strongest:
    This is an RS taking after the University of Illinois statement and recognizes El Reno as stronger. Why should shoddy one-paragraph sources from AP with lower speed figures be given more weight than scholarly research anyway? Why is it such an important fact to keep in the article? Can't we just settle on keeping in the "one of only three above 300mph" claim? Nobody's doubting it was that strong. As of now, there is no definitive "strongest tornado on record", and it's between Greenfield, El Reno, and Moore. Departure– (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Washington Post, a highly credible source, also referred to Moore as having the strongest winds (when using the outdated 301 figure, but point still stands). Also, a random Australian source IMO is not enough to claim that El Reno should take the spot. Wurman did not give a specific median wind speed for El Reno, so claiming that we should consider it having the highest would be WP:SYNTH. The highest official wind speed directly estimated from the DOW was the 313 figure from 2015, since that was a direct measurement whereas the 291-336 was not and just a standard range (reasons why some of the very old tornadoes with claims of 300-350 mph are not considered for this stat bc they were never measured or observed). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say 9News is just as reliable as the Washington Post; a WP:RSN may be helpful there. — EF5 (questions?) 16:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, per the previous RSN, we found that scholarly articles such as the one by Wurman are much better for this sort of information than random news sources. This is especially true when a lot of the other news sources themselves are both disagreeing and outdated at times. Departure– (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that 9News is unreliable and pointing towards the fact El Reno is given as a range is the whole dispute here. There really is no way to know how strong El Reno was within the given range - on the one hand, that means it was not definitively the strongest - but on the other, that means that Bridge Creek was not definitively stronger simply due to the fact its figure is larger than the other one's median. Departure– (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There really is no way to know how strong El Reno was within the given range and that’s the exact reason why this range and its high end estimate really should not be considered for the “strongest worldwide” point because it just creates unnecessary arguing. Plus, they said it could be anywhere in that range which means there’s a good chance it was probably not towards the higher end. The 2014 revision has a precise estimate instead of a range. Also, 9News seems to be violating WP:SYNTH as they seem to completely ignore the fact it was a range and it likely could've been weaker and towards the lower end. We’re talking about highest wind speed measured worldwide and a range should not be reflected within that since there is a huge margin of error, while median estimates like those found here for Bridge Creek, Mulhall, Red River, Piedmont, and the 2014 revision to 313 mph are the best ways to list this. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The El Reno range contains a figure higher than the Bridge Creek figure. That is my entire argument. The fact is there is no definitive answer for the strongest so Bridge Creek should not be treated as such. Departure– (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, when multiple RS like WaPo, CNN, AP have titled Moore as the highest, then it’s pretty clear there’s support to state as such. The only source (after searching for other sources to back it up only to just come across countless Reddit/Meta/X posts which aren’t reliable) to mention El Reno as being the highest is one from Australia that fails to mention the lower bound of the range, assumes the highest value is correct, which again, does not have a median estimate from that study, would be putting WP:UNDUE weight towards this statement. On Tornado records, for example, the median range/highest confirmed for Greenfield is stated as the minimum of that range (>309 mph) because FARM gave no estimated median speed so that minimum is used as the highest confirmed, which is what the 291-336 mph range cited in that specific study is identical to when determining an official wind from that. The lead is structured to align with that table we have layed out. Incorporating ranges into this statistic just does not work and causes arguments over a potential value that wasn’t even officially measured. The highest value officially confirmed for El Reno is 313 mph, which means that Bridge Creek still holds the record (as stated in multiple RSs, even considered as such for tornadic wind speed by the WMO, though relying on the old estimate). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is equal reason to dispute the claims that Bridge Creek was the strongest. Per the RSN discussion about the Greenfield tornado, a lot of these journalism sources are inferior to scholarly sources for making these sort of claims. I don't see why a part of the lede couldn't have "Bridge Creek has been described as the strongest tornado on record due to X", but we should not definitively call it the strongest when we have clear reason to believe it isn't. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If that’s the case, then would something like The 1999 Bridge-Creek tornado […] in which the highest confirmed wind speed worldwide from a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar was recorded, at 321 miles per hour (517 km/h); the tornado has been often described as being the strongest known due to this observation." work instead? It would focus more on the DOW observation and the highest confirmed wind speed value and then taking your suggestion of being often described as the strongest due to that. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support something like that. EF5 (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Highest confirmed" means that there isn't anything higher, and the worldwide claim is still sketchy, but the "extreme" nature should be noted, perhaps as "an extreme wind gust of 321 miles per hour" or some related wording per that. Departure– (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There technically isn’t, because again, the highest median value for El Reno is 313 while the newer range doesn’t have one so it can’t be used to denote that. As it stands, Bridge Creek is the highest confirmed wind speed, and it isn’t sketchy when even the WMO supports it. RSs still describe it as being the highest so I really don’t see any issue with the proposal above. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Highest confirmed" is... also awfully sketchy, now that I think of it. If it was confirmed, the tornado would have been rated F6, so it really should be "highest estimated", which runs us back into the El Reno problem. I played awful safe in Greenfield tornado so I don't see why we shouldn't here - in fact, the Greenfield statement uses the terminology peak wind speed determinations which is not the same as a direct confirmation. Departure– (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    F6s do not exist as determined by Fujita so I don’t know why that’s even being factored in here. “Awfully sketchy” makes no sense when the WMO and RSs have treated it as being the highest even with the old estimate. Greenfield is different because it gave no median value. VNT factors in here as well. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At least we're getting somewhere! Why can't we just say "some of the highest"? As much as I love Wikipedia drama, some things aren't worth fighting over. EF5 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wurman et al 2007, 135 m/s (302 mph; 486 km/h) - peak ground-relative wind velocity of 135.0 m s -1 - this figure is given as ±5 m/s, so 130–140 m/s (291–313 mph; 468–504 km/h).
    I'm having real trouble finding the original source cited in the Greenfield paper for the Bridge Creek estimates (I believe it was a presentation with no online mirror). I notice however that the Greenfield source that many of these RS use is very careful not to explicitly say one was "the strongest" and instead say that these three were all the only ones over 300mph - this is the compromise I'm trying to reach.
    "Fastest on earth" really shouldn't apply here as it was a determination of wind speeds, not explicitly seeing them, not a direct measurement, none of that - hence why Cyclone Olivia still has the official record by all accounts. Departure– (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The updated source from Greenfield is referring to this study and although it doesn't mention the date, it quotes with a maximum of 144 m⋅s−1 observed at 37 m ARL., and cross-referencing with the other references, this is referring to Bridge Creek as 144 metres per second (322 mph; 518.5 km/h). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, 9News seems to be violating WP:SYNTH as they seem to completely ignore the fact it was a range and it likely could've been weaker and towards the lower end - what about WP:VNT again? For relying on that, saying that a source is somehow violating a Wikipedia policy goes directly against VNT, which after all is an essay. — EF5 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "The 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado was a large, long-lived and exceptionally powerful F5 tornado that produced one of the highest wind speeds ever measured from a tornado: 321 miles per hour (517 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar" (emphasis mine), and mention the wind speed dispute in the body? It's not our prerogative to call which tornado the record belongs to. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 21:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I'm trying to say. Departure– (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to that. EF5 (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this what we're going with? Ignore the constant signature changes, I promise I'll settle on one today. — EF5 12:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly support that wording. The "strongest" claim can still be in the lede, but it probably shouldn't be in the first sentence, especially when it has to be added in such an awkward way. Departure– (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the "strongest in the world" claim, due to the dispute with El Reno, should really stay out of the lede and can reside in the prose. The caveat, of course, is that this is natural winds being measured with radar, as opposed to landfalling Cyclone Olivia, which holds the measured record. Departure– (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any issues with that, but I still feel like it should be mentioned that most generally consider it the strongest due to it? Basically:
The 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado was a large, long-lived and exceptionally powerful F5 tornado that produced one of the highest wind speeds ever measured from a tornado, at 322 miles per hour (519 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar; it is generally considered by the public as the strongest worldwide, although this is not considered an official record yet. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why, though? It's creating considerable issues and I don't like that wording regardless. EF5 (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's really not worded good and per my understanding there are numerous other tornadoes that "the public" would likely think of as strongest. Who is "the public" anyway? Departure– (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then replace it with "it is considered by some as the strongest worldwide." and remove the last part then. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wording change !vote

[edit]

@EF5, MarioProtIV, and KN2731: Since discussion died down and we're drawing closer to a consensus, let's do a !vote to determine consensus on the below wording for the whole first lede paragraph:

The 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado was a large, long-lived and exceptionally powerful F5 tornado that devastated much of the southern Oklahoma City metropolitan area, most notably Bridge Creek and Moore, on the evening of May 3, 1999. The tornado covered 38 miles (61 km) during its 85-minute existence, destroying thousands of homes, killing 36 people (plus another five indirectly), and caused US$1 billion (1999 USD) in damage (the fifth-costliest on record not accounting for inflation). Its severity prompted the first-ever use of the tornado emergency statement by the National Weather Service. One of the highest wind speeds ever determined from a tornado was recorded at 321 miles per hour (517 km/h) by a Doppler on Wheels (DOW) radar over Bridge Creek. This figure is one of only three over 300 mph (480 km/h), and is often cited as one of the highest wind figures from a tornado and worldwide.

I'm moving it away from its current lede and removing the wind measurement from the lede sentence per 2013 El Reno tornado and Greenfield tornado. Both of those were known for those intensity but leaving it further down doesn't ruin the claim and we can have an attributed "strongest from a tornado and worldwide" that isn't given undue weight. In my opinion, the damage, casualty count and first tornado emergency are the most important aspects of the storm, as notable as the wind figure may seem. While we're at it, let's get rid of the citations in the lede per MOS.

As I said, it's just a simple !vote; support, oppose, your reasons. Let's not make this any harder than it needs to. We can discuss amendments to this wording as they come up, but a dubious tag in the lede is really hurting this GA-class article. Departure– (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supposse Support per my above reasoning. Also, there is no rule against having citations in the lede, that's just a wikimisconception. Also important to note the 500 mph Charles City estimate, while it was revised down at one point it was by far the highest wind speed ever estimated. — EF5 13:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a rule, but it's outlined in MOS:LEDE#Citations. I've been advised to remove citations in the lede where possible in my GA and FA work, and all information in the lede is cited in the prose. Departure– (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, yea, but my point is that it's mistakenly considered unacceptable. Read the MOS closely: Although the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. — EF5 13:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either way it's a minor point compared to the !vote we're doing here. We can discuss it once this lede change is instituted or rejected. Departure– (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. — EF5 14:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support👍 14.182.207.84 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway This figure is one of only three over 300 mph (480 km/h), and is often cited as one of the highest wind figures from a tornado and worldwide everything is over, let it be calm, but now if you argue more, it will only lose other people's opinions. 14.182.207.84 (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you meant by this comment? Departure– (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean: this is one of three rare figures exceeding 300 miles per hour that are officially recorded and estimated and are often cited in reputable sources when talking about the maximum wind speed of a tornado. I'm not saying it's unique or indisputable, I just think that because this issue has been discussed a lot, maybe we should leave it alone, to avoid affecting those who want to contribute more constructively. 14.182.207.84 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "leave it alone"? Moving it a bit further down in the lede isn't going to stop good-faith contributions to this article. Departure– (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to editing or further discussion, I just hope that we weigh between the accuracy and stability of the article. When a detail has been carefully considered by the community many times, I think keeping it as it is is a way to respect the collective effort and keep the article from being dragged into unnecessary side arguments. 14.182.207.84 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you find it necessary to add more information or balance your perspective, I fully support it — just hope that it is done in a constructive way, avoiding affecting the spirit of mutual cooperation. Since this number is already the result of many reviews, I only propose to keep it as it is now unless there is a really convincing reason to change. 14.182.207.84 (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming good faith that English likely isn't your first language, but you can cite official WP: space policy and essays using the WP shortcut when making a link (i.e. WP:AGF (assume good faith), WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), etc.)
Also, consensus can change, and as a community Wikipedia can change what an article says any time it pleases, so long as there's consensus to do so. Don't worry, changing the lede isn't going to hinder cooperation. Departure– (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK so I'm relieved. 14.182.207.84 (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it myself. 14.182.207.84 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think now we shouldn't argue more about the Wind of Bridge Creek–Moore 1999 because if we argue more now, others will lose their opinions and we will be more tired, it won't be useful, guys. 14.182.207.84 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, if someone still sees something really important that needs to be clarified, I still listen, but I hope everyone considers whether it is necessary enough to continue or not. Because the ultimate goal is still to make the article better, not to win the right part. 14.182.207.84 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And if people want to argue more, I'm willing to listen and I don't stop you. 14.182.207.84 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, it's generally considered unwise to institute changes that are still in discussion, and it's also counterproductive to say "we shouldn't argue more" without pointing to specific examples. The WPWX community is often torn apart by these discussions but I don't see any evidence of that happening here. Departure– (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, one digit can turn into a full-blown war! I agree with you though that unlike other cases, this isn't a "major" dispute. — EF5 16:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1999_Bridge_Creek–Moore_tornado&oldid=1289825525"